home

Um, You Think They Didn't Know?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:37:26 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Ezra Klein treats his readers like rubes:

In mounting a furious -- but basically hopeless -- campaign, however, Clinton is exposing Obama's weaknesses, but not gaining any real advantage from them. McCain's folks, by contrast, might have previously suspected that they should target white, economically depressed states like Pennsylvania and Ohio, but now they have a precinct-by-precinct map of where Obama underperforms, ready narratives to activate in their negative campaigning (they don't have to grope around to create a line of attack), and a media thats now convinced of his vulnerabilities.

(Emphasis supplied.) You gotta be kidding me. Maybe Ezra did not know about the geography and the demography, but I can assure you the Republicans did. Talk about disrespecting your readership.

No endorsement (I have not had a chance to read it), but here is Lukasiak on the election.

< Hillary Raises 10MM Since PA Victory | How's A Unity Ticket Sound Now? >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Um, You Think They Didn't Know? | 243 comments (243 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    That's one take for sure... (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by white n az on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:42:18 PM EST
    here's another take from the San Francisco Chronicle

    There's a lot of interesting commentary here including...

    Eerie replay
    Jim Pinkerton, who worked in the Reagan and first Bush administrations, said Democrats "are making an eerie replay of 1972," when nominee George McGovern lost in a landslide to Republican Richard Nixon during the Vietnam War.
    "They're convincing themselves that the youth vote will carry them, like McGovern was convinced the Baby Boomers and the 18-year-old vote were going to elect him," Pinkerton said. "Well, there were a lot more Lynyrd Skynyrd fans than James Taylor fans out there, and McGovern got clobbered, including by young people."

    As for Ezra...he's missing the whole point of primaries in the first place...you have to find out your strengths and weaknesses - otherwise, you end up 'McGoverned'

    It's as if they shut their brains off (none / 0) (#73)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:28:21 PM EST
    I am so disappointed in so many "journalist" that I respected before the primary season. I have trouble with blind devotion. Even if you love your kids there's times and actions that make you want to kill them! They're at the point where he can do absolutely nothing wrong. All the gay blogs support him even after he toured with a gay bashing gospel singer! He says he will repeal DADT but he won't replace it with anything. So the situation goes back to the 1950's again. And yet they march in step. Why are so many refusing to be honest with themselves and their readers?

    [ Parent ]
    maybe journalists are that stupid. (none / 0) (#119)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:14:11 PM EST
    Somerby seems to think so.

    [ Parent ]
    They are, especially (none / 0) (#189)
    by cal1942 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:22:23 PM EST
    a number of "progressive" bloggers.

    Try this one on.

    In a post a couple of weeks back, Yglesias stated that white men represented only a tiny slice of the Democratic Party's demographic and weren't worth worrying about.

    Doing the math tells a different story.  The inescapable fact is that white men are still the 2nd largest Democratic group, second only to white women.

    Yglesias still believes that the middle east will become a bedrock of liberal democracy. I think he's still looking for a pony to make his support for the Iraq invasion look good.

    I haven't noticed if Josh Marshall, who also supported the invasion of Iraq, has made similar long term prognostications.

    [ Parent ]

    If Hillary's campaign is so "hopeless" (none / 0) (#158)
    by felizarte on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:47:29 PM EST
    as the quote suggests, why then are they so foolishly going after Hillary Clinton and alienating her supporters?  The logic escapes me.

    [ Parent ]
    And, they would leave Hillary (none / 0) (#169)
    by felizarte on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:53:02 PM EST
    to campaign in the remaining states all by her lonesome because Obama has the nomination all sewed up.  But of couse we all know that neither Obama or Clinton will have enough pledged delegates before the convention.  And nothing is final until the convention calls for all the votes of the delegates.  

    [ Parent ]
    50,000 Hillary first time donors in last 24 hrs! (none / 0) (#182)
    by Salt on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:06:57 PM EST
    Folks, I've never seen anything like it -- thanks to you we are breaking every record we've ever had. The number of people coming on our website and supporting Hillary is nothing short of incredible. More than 50,000 people have contributed to the campaign for the very first time in the last 24 hours alone.

    Terry Mc Auliffe email


    [ Parent ]

    Fabulous News! (none / 0) (#183)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:09:46 PM EST
    and sends a big message to the Pelosi Thug Club.

    [ Parent ]
    Of course they already knew this stuff (5.00 / 10) (#3)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:43:19 PM EST
    It's how you gerrymander a Congressional map.

    Why are so many people suddenly so stupid about politics?

    I wonder about that too (5.00 / 6) (#37)
    by BevD on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:09:05 PM EST
    it's as if this is a nation of 18 year olds who have never payed attention to an election before this one and have no knowledge, historical reference or experience in politics.  

    [ Parent ]
    The GOP knows that Obama (none / 0) (#194)
    by myiq2xu on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:27:36 PM EST
    is black too.  Bill Clinton didn't point it out to them either.

    They also know that he's inexperienced and has controversial friends.

    [ Parent ]

    he thinks his readership (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:43:38 PM EST
    is bitter and clingy and needs to have these things explained. Snark. But yea, what a preposterous premise. Of course repubs know these things. And did he say Clinton's campaign was hopeless? That's not very hopeful of him. Snark.

    Oooh, two snarks in one post. Do I get a prize?

    Gotta share this . . . (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by abfabdem on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:46:28 PM EST
    http://www.womensmediacenter.com/ex/020108.html

    [ Parent ]
    Thank you (none / 0) (#53)
    by bjorn on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:17:03 PM EST
    I love this and will share it with everyone!

    [ Parent ]
    Wow! (none / 0) (#164)
    by tamens on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:50:23 PM EST
    Thank you for linking this.  

    [ Parent ]
    Obama's unelectability same as it ever was... (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by Exeter on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:43:57 PM EST
    ...the media, for the most part, hasn't picked up on it. The only state he shown ANY electability was in Wisconsin, which came at the height of Obamamania and after he won nine in a row.

    But you see... (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:11:47 PM EST
    Obama people don't want to find out about his weaknesses until the first Wednesday in November.  They really just don't want to know now.

    The thing is that you can't fix a problem unless you acknowledge it.  If he isn't successfully connecting with a certain group of voters now, he does have time to adapt and fix the problem.  But it is not going to happen if everyone in his realm insists that it isn't a problem and blames other people for exposing it.

    Voting is pretty straight forward.  Either people vote for you or they don't.  At least Obama gets a do over if he is the nominee.  At least Obama knows where he has to work harder - that is unless he and his supporters continue to insist that it is not his fault - if they continue to do that - he can't win and it really is that simple.

    [ Parent ]

    You know. Maybe Obama should just work on his (5.00 / 2) (#210)
    by derridog on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:48:05 PM EST
    weaknesses, instead of requiring others not to point them out.

    [ Parent ]
    A much more succint statement on (none / 0) (#220)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:00:29 PM EST
    the subject than I could ever make.

    [ Parent ]
    as an obama supporter, (none / 0) (#57)
    by cy street on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:18:19 PM EST
    the only problem is see, is that he needs 298 delegates to win the nomination and i am thankful that i do not need 431.

    [ Parent ]
    Since no superdelegates have yet voted (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by cymro on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:26:45 PM EST
    ... and some caucus states have yet to complete their caucus processes, the actual numbers are much higher than you claim. All the published numbers are just estimates, which could change. That's something to think about, while you're feeling thankful.

    [ Parent ]
    it is difficult to find a single reference (none / 0) (#81)
    by cy street on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:36:25 PM EST
    that claims the house of clinton is winning.  if you know one, please forward it.

    the argument within the original post is an interesting one, and one i would take to heart if i were supporting the house of clinton.  however, the premise is electability on the basis of demography.

    this is persuasive if electability were the deciding factor.

    this is not how the nomination is going to be decided.  most super delegates are agreed to follow the fifty plus primary caucus results.  

    if i were a clinton supporter, i would engage the supers more than i would box the obama supporters as misogynist and uppity ivy leaguers.

    especially given the alma maters of the clintons.  

    [ Parent ]

    If electability is NOT the deciding factor, .... (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by cymro on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:19:23 PM EST
    ... then why do we have superdelegates? If all they are going to do is "to follow the fifty plus primary caucus results" then they serve no purpose, do they? A computer could count the pledged delegates; we wouldn't need superdelegates to confuse the count.

    [ Parent ]
    i never claimed that the supers (none / 0) (#132)
    by cy street on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:21:59 PM EST
    had to uphold those contests.  i seriously doubt they will go against the will of those contests.  

    either way, clinton will need more than two out of three post june fourth.  that is a steep hill by any standard of deliberation.

    [ Parent ]

    the PA primary was different (none / 0) (#172)
    by Josey on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:55:46 PM EST
    than all the others because it reflected Bitter-Cling-gate.
    Voters may be disappointed that Hillary embellished a foreign trip, but she hasn't called voters racist gun toting Bible thumpers for not supporting her.
    And that meme in Obama's own words is here to stay.
    Today John McCain asked the NC GOP to take down their anti-Obama-Wright ad - but declared Obama is an elitist.

    [ Parent ]
    Electability (none / 0) (#143)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:31:34 PM EST
    will guide a large number of the super delegates.  Kerry and Kennedy had no problem going against their state's mandate.  Neither will many super delegates.

    They will make the argument to their own constinuents about why they voted how they voted.

    Which is also why most of them will wait this out.  The picture is coming clear.  It will be even clearer over the next few races.

    Obama is no longer able to claim that he's the darling of the highly educated, for example.

    Take a look at his numbers.  He's losing ground with that group.

    He's not got the media sewed up, either.  It's obvious that the media has found their footing in how to discuss him without arousing the race card threat.

    He's not able to play the race card any longer.  That one will kill him for sure now.

    He went for it in Pennsylvania.  He threw 3 times the money at the state that she did, and she whipped him.  She even made in-roads on his youth group.  (Chelsea is improving.  :))

    He has definite electability issues now to address.

    [ Parent ]

    While the Obama camp is busy explaining (none / 0) (#154)
    by felizarte on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:44:54 PM EST
    why they are winning even as they are losing, the GOP 527 in No. Carolina is running ads starring Barack Obama and Rev. Wright.  It begs the question of who is really providing the republicans with enough materials to beat up on the democrats?  I tend to agree with a poster who earlier said Obama is looking only at the nomination and not beyond the convention to the GE.

    [ Parent ]
    If the that's the only problem you see... (none / 0) (#85)
    by Exeter on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:42:13 PM EST
    ...then get ready for President McCain, because if Obama gets the nomination and he can't connect better with the white working class, he is going to to get creamed in November.

    [ Parent ]
    if "white working class" folks (none / 0) (#93)
    by cy street on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:48:10 PM EST
    vote for mccain, then they will get the government they wished for.  more iraq, more economic incompetence and social injustice.  i respect that choice.

    [ Parent ]
    You know what darlin'? (5.00 / 4) (#111)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:08:41 PM EST
    The stakes are way too high at this point in history to be playing those "take him or leave him" games.  We have serious problems in this country and we need someone to fix them.  If Barack Obama is not willing to adjust and adapt based on what he has learned about his short comings with specific audiences, then he can take a hike as far as I am concerned.  He is vying for our party's nomination and part of the deal is that he needs to want to win enough to try to connect will as many voters as he possibly can.

    Neither of these candidates is my first choice.  The fact is that Clinton is showing herself to be more willing to adapt than Obama has.  The guy just can't bring himself to make statement on economic populism even when the voters' primary concern is the economy.  I don't blame these people for saying they'd vote for McCain - his plans are free market too.  His healthcare plan is about as useless.  What's the incentive for them to risk it on the "new guy" in this scary terrorist world then?  Not much imo.

    [ Parent ]

    i did not blame the either. (none / 0) (#113)
    by cy street on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:11:11 PM EST
    i said that i respect their choice.  so, we agree.

    [ Parent ]
    You say that they deserve the (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:20:24 PM EST
    government they get.

    I don't deserve the government they get and if someone can lure them away from McCain, that is the person I'm going with - I don't really care about either of these personalities.  They are interviewing for a serious job and I want them to be capable of pulling it off.

    Why couldn't Obama win against Clinton in PA?  Why?  Because she was "mean"?  Well, McCain will be mean too.  Because she was too specific?  Well, McCain can do that too.  Because the media was "unfair" - cry me a river for all Democrats in this media environment.  Or was it because everyone in Pennsylvania is a racist - which is my personal favorite because everyone knows that people love you more when you call them racist.  But the other one I really think is "special" is the one where they say that Clinton voters are "low information voters" - man - way to win them over.

    Did it ever occur to more than just a handful of Obama supporters that they guy needs to make some improvements in his game or is this another one of those status quo Titanic-like Democratic campaigns that only figures out that they need to turn the ship after they've hit the damn iceberg?

    Sorry but I am very cranky today.  I am actually angry at Obama for not doing better.  That may not make sense to you since I am not one of the dedicated fans, but I am a Democrat and I do think this country would be much better off with either of our candidates than the Republican opponent.

    [ Parent ]

    why did clinton lose the twenty nine contests (none / 0) (#137)
    by cy street on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:25:11 PM EST
    that she lost?  does it matter?

    pretty soon, six weeks, someone is going to have the 2025.

    [ Parent ]

    You think she doesn't make me (none / 0) (#219)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:59:09 PM EST
    nervous?  As I said, she is showing an adaptability and flexibility that he has yet to exhibit in this race imo.  That gives her an edge in my mind.

    [ Parent ]
    My point, is that if he is the nominee... (none / 0) (#100)
    by Exeter on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:58:21 PM EST
    ...the first step to recovery of this or any other problem is acknowledgement that the problem exists.

    [ Parent ]
    i understand. (none / 0) (#108)
    by cy street on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:03:31 PM EST
    i believe the choice between obama and mccain is a no brainer if you are working class.

    [ Parent ]
    Well, alot of the people we are talking (none / 0) (#208)
    by Exeter on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:44:04 PM EST
    about are, frankly, racist.

    [ Parent ]
    Ooop... I din't finish that last thought... (none / 0) (#209)
    by Exeter on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:47:07 PM EST
    A lot of the people we are talking about are racist or they think of McCain as conservative Democrat that is more palatable to them, than one they perceive as a liberal Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    Like the Repub are (none / 0) (#102)
    by PlayInPeoria on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:00:20 PM EST
    going to advertive that! SNARK

    And McCain CAN distance himself from Bush... like he HAS a VOTING record!

    The Repubs want the WH soooo much that they have "as close to an Independent as they can get" as thier nominee.

    They are much more diciplined ... do NOT take it for granted that the Dems will win the GE!


    [ Parent ]

    I guess Obama's "unity" message ... (none / 0) (#136)
    by cymro on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:24:44 PM EST
    ... does not resonate with you, eh?

    [ Parent ]
    well, john kerry ... (none / 0) (#142)
    by narius on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:30:40 PM EST
    did not convince the voters otherwise.

    So don't be so sure about what the voter do or do not want.

    [ Parent ]

    Like today's SCOTUS decision that police can (none / 0) (#174)
    by jawbone on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:56:57 PM EST
    stop motorists for any perceived violation and make that the basis of a search of the car and occupants?

    I don't think anyone thinks that is any way to live in the country. But with McSame choosing Roberts type judges, oh my.

    You're pulled over bcz the cop says you didn't signal--or didn't signal in a timely manner? Then search you and your car? Maybe plant something? Like that's never happened.

    Of course, a Roberts loaded court would have no problem allowing the Unitary Executive to arrest at will for "national security" "reasons."

    Way to a police state.

    [ Parent ]

    A President nominates (none / 0) (#225)
    by ding7777 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:07:18 PM EST
    a SC justice - its still up to the Senate to confirm him/her.  

    [ Parent ]
    Does that include (none / 0) (#96)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:53:56 PM EST
    the SD from Nebraska that he just got.  That's in addition to the OK gov.  Hillary also got a Super today from TN.  

    [ Parent ]
    does it matter? (none / 0) (#101)
    by cy street on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:59:22 PM EST
    on the morning of june fourth, obama will need eighty to one hundred supers to cross the threshold.  clinton will need two hundred plus.

    even if you indulge in the demography destiny, electability debate, it will not change this fact.  there will have to be an avalanche of supers to overturn the fifty plus contests.

    pennsylvania will be on the floor with wyoming in denver.  yesterday did nothing to change that.

    [ Parent ]

    Agreed (none / 0) (#109)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:04:50 PM EST
    her road is much harder than his.

    [ Parent ]
    and if the super dees ignore electability (none / 0) (#231)
    by kempis on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:56:24 PM EST
    ...They'll be nominating the candidate less likely to win. Interesting, isn't it....

    [ Parent ]
    yep, that's where he peaked (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by diplomatic on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:01:00 PM EST
    "Well, we'll always have Wisconsin."

    [ Parent ]
    No they did it was on different shows (none / 0) (#77)
    by Salt on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:32:09 PM EST
    Joe S. morning today and Fox Rove, John King and they even mention only Wisc.. What's happening today I believe is the Creative Class knows their scam advocacies rationales have been exposed as a fraud and the empirical data places that period on the suppose they all been spinning.

    Demographics are political destiny...BTD says well there in ...

    [ Parent ]

    So true! (none / 0) (#110)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:05:39 PM EST
    Your observation is so true.  Wisconsin was the biggest win, and even that state is a bit of an oddity.  But that was when the chanters started really quoting what "his" group was.

    I keep thinking that he's about to lose the educated vote bloc.  

    Looking at the exit polls from Ohio, he's in big trouble.

    He's softening on that group which makes him more than a race candidate.

    [ Parent ]

    diary on DK rec list (none / 0) (#227)
    by Josey on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:14:41 PM EST
    claims Obama lost PA because of racism - and blames media pundits - the same ones that have promoted Obama!!
    Unbelievable!
    No doubt there is racism in PA and every state.
    But there's also the possibility those "racists" didn't vote for Obama because he's so low on substance and too whiny and elitist.

    [ Parent ]
    It really boils down to elitism, doesn't it? (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Jim J on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:44:26 PM EST
    The misogyny factor is certainly there, sure, but the utter snooty cluelessness of these Obama fanboyz borders on caricature. They remind me of any number of stock characters from one of the old Britcoms.

    Obama's campaign is essentially America's self-anointed, Ivy League aristocracy circling the wagons.

    did you see Lukasiak's analyses? (none / 0) (#105)
    by Josey on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:01:36 PM EST
    link is in the diary.
    It's awesome!  hopefully the SDs will see it.


    [ Parent ]
    circling the wagon (singular) (none / 0) (#125)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:16:42 PM EST
    I'm reminded of teh Monty Python Sketch about the Tigetr that bit the British officer's arm off.

    [ Parent ]
    You're exactly right. (none / 0) (#163)
    by lilburro on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:50:17 PM EST
    And the way they are reacting to the magnitude of Clinton's victory leads me to believe they will be as short-sighted and useless to Obama come the GE.  Do they really think PA works the way they currently claim it does?  They have a capacity to flip flop, so maybe they'll be smarter in the fall.  Whether Clinton has gone negative or positive, Obama has not won the white working class enough for there NOT to be a problem on his end.  Figure it out.  If I were an Obama blogger, that is what I would be doing right now.

    [ Parent ]
    well, you know (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by Turkana on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:44:48 PM EST
    republicans have a long history of not knowing how to mount a negative campaign. or something.

    fwiw- your responses to ezra klein are a bit like cheney's "hunting" expeditions...

    yea, this one is too easy (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:52:05 PM EST
    I'm almost starting to feel bad for the guy. Almost. :-)

    [ Parent ]
    again I refer you to (5.00 / 10) (#9)
    by Kathy on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:46:29 PM EST
    my cat hiding in the laundry basket, like I can't see his big, bushy tail sticking up.

    Clinton is exposing Obama's weaknesses?  Exit polling from every single primary thus far (except WI) show his weaknesses. Let him talk long enough and Obama shows his weaknesses.

    Give me ten minutes and a graph showing socio-economic realities in any state in America and I can tell you where Obama will lose and where Clinton will wipe up the floor.

    Love the analogy! (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by cymro on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:09:36 PM EST
    And it could perhaps be extended to include some other characteristic behaviors:

    Cats purr and preen themselves when they are the center of attention, but get cranky when they are not getting their way.

    Sound familiar?

    [ Parent ]

    My cats renounce and reject that familiarity! (none / 0) (#56)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:18:01 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    You don't understand..sigh. (none / 0) (#124)
    by FlaDemFem on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:15:47 PM EST
    Dogs have owners, cats have staff. And they can be, and often are, one and the same. At least they are at my house..LOL

    [ Parent ]
    My cats are more consistent than Obama! (none / 0) (#159)
    by LHinSeattle on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:47:46 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    This is exactly why (5.00 / 5) (#58)
    by stillife on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:18:39 PM EST
    doesn't want to do any more debates.

    Let him talk long enough and Obama shows his weaknesses.

    The hopey/changey message is so much more inspiring when it's not subjected to logical scrutiny.

    [ Parent ]

    Also... (none / 0) (#95)
    by Lou Grinzo on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:50:29 PM EST
    ...the tabula rasa approach to campaigning can only work for so long until voters start asking for more than audacious hope.  I suspect that one of the things that's hurting Obama at least a little now is the sheer length of this triathlon of a primary season.
    What is The Cost of Energy?
    [ Parent ]
    Even Tweety (5.00 / 3) (#98)
    by magisterludi on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:56:23 PM EST
    said Obama's rhetoric is sounding "tired" this morning on JoeScar.

    A rare moment of clarity, i suppose.

    [ Parent ]

    Axelrod didn't plan for primary this long--or (none / 0) (#198)
    by jawbone on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:33:31 PM EST
    for needing new material.

    I mean, once you're beyond "seeing the light," it's pretty nontranscendental.

    How do you get them on the bandwagon if the ol' light show doesn't work any more?

    Facts?
    Proposals?
    Explanations?

    Ooof.

    [ Parent ]

    Maybe Axelrod should write some new scripts. The (none / 0) (#212)
    by derridog on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:50:35 PM EST
    Deval Patrick ones are getting old.

    [ Parent ]
    I just read (none / 0) (#120)
    by stillife on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:14:12 PM EST
    on No Quarter, that Obama's supporters are now chanting "No More Debates!"  

    [ Parent ]
    Check out the one below it.. (5.00 / 2) (#160)
    by FlaDemFem on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:47:47 PM EST
    About the ads about Obama...the GOP is starting them against NC Dems who have endorsed Obama soon. All about Wright and Obama. Devastating, simply devastating. A few of these ads and he is done in the GE. Done, finished, out of politics. Even Illinois won't send him back to the Senate after the kind of national exposure he is about to get.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama will now look at the floor and sing (none / 0) (#201)
    by jawbone on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:36:41 PM EST
    "Yes, we can."  

    Someone wrote about trying to persuade some Obama supporters at a caucus by discussing issues, and the Obama group just looked away from her or down at the floor and began singing, "Yes, we can."

    I do not know if this anecdote is accurate--but it is telling.  

    [ Parent ]

    another dimension of their delusion (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:48:13 PM EST
    I just thought of this. OK, so the Obama boyz really thought Obama would win or at least do lots better. So they didn't understand the demographic. Aaaaaand, by their logic, if they didn't understand it, no one else could either. OK, figured that out. Next problem please. :-)

    Unpleasentness avoided (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by wasabi on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:49:29 PM EST
    This whole unpleasantness of the primary could have been avoided if Clinton would have just had the decentcy to drop out after Iowa.

    I am positive that Obama would then have gone on to a challenge-free GE election.

    Those Republicans just don't know how to smear Democrats unless we give them the playbook, right?

    Apparently there are .. . (none / 0) (#35)
    by abfabdem on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:07:59 PM EST
    some nasty ads in North Carolina now that are really going after Obama in hopes local Dems running for office who support him can be tarnished in their campaigns.

    [ Parent ]
    Not surprising (none / 0) (#40)
    by Emma on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:11:16 PM EST
    If it works, it could scare some superdelegates.

    [ Parent ]
    Do we now hope that (none / 0) (#107)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:02:41 PM EST
    Dems lose races if they don't support Hillary?

    [ Parent ]
    we now hope... (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by white n az on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:15:26 PM EST
    that the discussion of electability is on the table and discussed in a meaningful way because there's little little value to being McGoverned (as discussed upthread)

    [ Parent ]
    Well, it is on the table (none / 0) (#195)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:28:03 PM EST
    so if, in spite these ads, Obama still wins NC by a good margin will that change your view of his electability?  


    [ Parent ]
    Oh please (none / 0) (#203)
    by Regency on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:38:10 PM EST
    Y'know how his campaign said the PA wasn't a victory for Hill because she was gonna win anyway? That's North Carolina for Barack. Please, get real.

    [ Parent ]
    in a state (none / 0) (#206)
    by white n az on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:43:04 PM EST
    with blacks representing a very large percentage of registered Democrats that is certain to be a red state in November?

    You need to connect dots for me to make this into an argument because I don't see it.

    [ Parent ]

    If these ads are so potent (none / 0) (#216)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:53:23 PM EST
    as is argued here then won't we see the effect on May 6th.  


    [ Parent ]
    *sigh* (none / 0) (#223)
    by Regency on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:05:24 PM EST
    The ads will be potent because they aren't coming from a democrat anymore. They're coming from the opposition and they will be just a taste of our November defeat.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm sorry... (none / 0) (#234)
    by white n az on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:45:14 PM EST
    we are actually referring to different things so we're not connecting at all...somewhere along the way, you morphed the point.

    [ Parent ]
    Heh (none / 0) (#232)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:03:05 PM EST
    These are not pro-Hillary ads.  These are Republican ads designed to hurt downticket Democrats by linking them to Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    No, but the GOP does.. look and see. (none / 0) (#170)
    by FlaDemFem on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:53:07 PM EST
    NC ad That is what he has to look forward to in the GE. And nothing you can do or say will stop the GOP from taking him apart at the seams. And the entire Democratic Party will suffer for it. Way to unify the party, kids!!!

    [ Parent ]
    One of the NC ads is being run (none / 0) (#190)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:25:03 PM EST
    against Obama himself.  Why would they do that if he is the weaker candidate?  Wouldn't they want him to win NC?  

    And neither side is doing much to unify the party, though I do agree with you that the party will suffer.

    As to the 'kid' comment.  I'm over 40, and though I can pass for 10 years younger, I still am not a kid.  There are intelligent people who support Hillary, and intelligent people who support Obama.  There are politicians I respect on both sides also.

    [ Parent ]

    I believe there is an ad or two (none / 0) (#197)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:31:35 PM EST
    running in LA against the special election Dem.  This one links him to Obama and slams Obama for having too liberal of a health care policy.  Though the Dem has an uphill battle in that special election, we'll get another test of the "power" of these ads there.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't know where you are (none / 0) (#207)
    by angie on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:43:22 PM EST
    but LA ain't NC.  That isn't even comparing apples to oranges -- that's comparing apples to diamonds.

    [ Parent ]
    I meant Louisianna and (none / 0) (#237)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:14:16 PM EST
    the special election is in a republican leaning district.  What is the abbreviation for Louisianna anyway/

    [ Parent ]
    Louisiana is the spelling of the state (none / 0) (#245)
    by angie on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:22:53 AM EST
    LA is the postal abbreviation -- I obviously thought you meant LA the city.  Easy to confuse -- I would write La for Louisiana to avoid the confusion, unless I was addressing a letter.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama's supporters (5.00 / 12) (#15)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:53:07 PM EST
    ...can taste the "bitter" defeat that Obama is pulling from the jaws of victory.

    Hillary is winning the most important argument right now - the electability argument.  

    as I point out in my analysis of nine recent SUSA state "November matchup" polls, Obama is tanking against McCain in states that Democrats could/should win, while Clinton is holding her own..

    (blogwhoring alert -- hey, how about a link to that BTD! ;-)  )

    the only argument that the Obamistas are gonna have by June is the "moral" one -- that Clinton does not deserve the nomination because she is a bad person.

    Good Job On The Analysis (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:24:25 PM EST
    Read it on correntewire.

    Meanwhile Obama, his staff and his supporters continue to provide anti-white working class material for the Republicans to use in the GE.

    OBAMA: And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

    Axelrod: Democrats Don't Win the White Working Class via NPR

    "The white working class has gone to the Republican nominee for many elections, going back even to the Clinton years. This is not new that Democratic candidates don't rely solely on those votes."

    Randi Rhodes: "The Clinton campaign describes Hillary's voters as older, white, and undereducated. Or as we called them in my neighborhood: white trash."

    Tom Edsall, HuffPo , Another White Guy Election showing demeaning picture of white male Clinton supporters Link to T.Marsh with picture




    [ Parent ]
    White Trash (none / 0) (#149)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:38:02 PM EST
    won't work in Penn.

    She sneaked up on him and won nearly the same number of college educated folks.

    BTW, I predict the "youth" are about to discover that it's cool to be for Hillary.

    They love to rebel.  :)

    [ Parent ]

    Can't Find The Actual Data on The PA Exit Polls (none / 0) (#226)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:09:41 PM EST
    today. At times I am google challenged. If I read the data right last night, Hillary actually squeaked out a win in the white youth vote.

    [ Parent ]
    Check (none / 0) (#229)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:35:03 PM EST
    out CNN, which has the exit poll data as well as the actual county breakdown.

    [ Parent ]
    Thanks Found It On CNN (none / 0) (#230)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:48:31 PM EST
    I was right. Hillary won all age groups among white voters. She won the White 18 - 29 group 52% to 48%.

    [ Parent ]
    oh man! (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by ccpup on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:45:20 PM EST
    I love TL.  So many intelligent, reasonable people who know their election sh*t backwards and forwards.  Truly a joy to read and so, so nice from the horribly idiotic clap-trap you find on so many other sites.

    Thank you, thank you, thank you!

    [ Parent ]

    It feels like a rear guard action. (none / 0) (#165)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:50:29 PM EST
    The last half dozen refugees from various sites pointing out the blindingly obvious.

    [ Parent ]
    well, coming to TL (none / 0) (#192)
    by ccpup on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:25:58 PM EST
    from other sites is a bit like stepping out of a dark hole and blinking unbelievably into a blindingly beautiful sun without having someone snap you in the back of the head with a gun and then kick you in the teeth when you're down.

    I mean, c'mon!  Ouch!   :-)

    [ Parent ]

    Heh (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:53:37 PM EST
    For you.

    [ Parent ]
    (((((( BTD ))))))))) (none / 0) (#34)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:06:56 PM EST
    y'er a sweetie to help me make Lambert pay more to his webhost! ;-)

    [ Parent ]
    More mindreading (none / 0) (#18)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:55:17 PM EST
    by Obamans.

    You'd think they actually knew her personally, the way they seem to "know" every action she takes is motivated by eeeeeevvvvvilllllll.

    [ Parent ]

    The only argument I hope to have (none / 0) (#33)
    by CST on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:04:56 PM EST
    Is certainly not a "moral" one, but a question of, who has more votes?  If the popular vote is in favor of Obama, he should win, period.  I don't care who voted in what states.  Or an "electability" argument which is based on polls that change every day, and frankly don't mean jack.  Likewise for Hillary, if she wins the total popular vote, she should win.  I just hope its within a Michigan "margin of error" so we don't have that blow up in our faces more than it already has.

    [ Parent ]
    When you factor in (5.00 / 4) (#68)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:25:14 PM EST
    all the votes for the other candidates (1,118,000 through potomac tuesday, not counting caucuses), its unlikely that either candidate can get a majority of the voters.

    I calculated the numbers differently than RCP (used euit polls to apportion the entire Michigan vote rather than give Clinton 327K and Obama noting, and used Washington's primary numbers because the caucus numbers are extrapolations based on estimated number of participants.)

    Obama is up by 69K out of 32 million votes cast.  He's gotten 48.25% to Clinton's 48.03%.

    If one or the other candidate was going to run away with the popular vote, I'd say that should be the criteria.  But neither of them is going to do that, or even get a simple majority of votes cast -- so that, like "pledged delegate count" becomes another metric that can't be considered conclusive.

    The SDs are just gonna have to do the job they are supposed to do, even if it does mean they have to think about it.

    ***
    yeah!  Talkleft tells you when you haven't closed a tag!!!

    [ Parent ]

    But there is a possiblity (none / 0) (#103)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:00:59 PM EST
    that the Supers will do their job, but not agree with the thinking that Clinton is the stronger candidate.  Today she gained 1 and he gained 2.  Of course they could change their minds. But do you really see someone endorsing at this point that wasn't very sure they were going to support their chosen candidate?

    [ Parent ]
    Just want to (none / 0) (#238)
    by Jane in CA on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:13:46 AM EST
    give a shout out to P Lukasiak. Thanks for bearing with all my rather rudimentary questions about the electoral process over on Belgravia Dispatch a couple months back.  You were great, and I wish I had known that you had your own website then.

    Funny that Gregory never came back with that promised explanation of his Obama endorsement, isn't it?  I still check in occasionally, but he hasn't blogged since January 10.  Anyway, I just found this site, and love it.  I was tired of getting beat up for expressing courteous questions/concerns elsewhere.

    Good to "see" you, and great analyis. I've bookmarked your site.


    [ Parent ]

    Still insisting (none / 0) (#180)
    by cal1942 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:05:57 PM EST
    that 600,000 Michiganders be ignored huh.

    Ridiculous. Anti-democratic.

    If Obama's name wasn't on the ballot that's his problem not the people of Michigan.

    Obama pulled his name in a cute stunt to damage his principle opponent.  If it backfires, that's tough.

    Count Michigan.

    [ Parent ]

    No not at all (none / 0) (#244)
    by CST on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:24:07 PM EST
    I said I hope whoever wins the popular vote wins with or without Michigan since it is an argument the two sides will never agree upon.  That way, you can include them or not and still have the same result.

    I am not making an argument about whether or not to include Michigan, I am hoping that's an argument we don't have to make with regards to the popular vote.  That's because I think it is the one issue that could really tear this thing to shreads and I am a wimp.

    [ Parent ]

    Whew (none / 0) (#115)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:11:48 PM EST
    You are so right, and it's a good reason for me to stay away from the so-called Progressive Blogs.  They are so not progressive.

    [ Parent ]
    Oh, my goodness (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by stillife on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:54:36 PM EST
    So Hillary is helping the Republicans now - and we all know how clueless they are about winning elections.  Like McCain's supporters could never have gotten that map if not for the help of That Woman.  Clearly, the writing's on the wall for November: if Obama's the nominee and loses, it's all Hillary's fault.  

    I even hear versions of this argument from pro-Hillary friends, who bemoan the "negativity" of this campaign (which is nothing, IMO, compared to previous Presidential elections) and say that both candidates should focus on beating McCain.  Well, I'm sorry, but it's a bit early for that.  There's a nomination to be won first, and I don't mind if Hillary takes it to the floor of the convention.  I'll never vote for McCain, but I think the DNC could use some tough love.  Howard Dean may want to drive us off a cliff, but I'm not going along for the ride.

    When did everyone become such wusses? (5.00 / 8) (#29)
    by sister of ye on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:02:30 PM EST
    One of my former favorite bloggers (who finally revealed himself as an Obama supporter) has been beating the "it's gone on too long, it's tiring" drum for months. Well, the voters don't seem to mind, and aren't we the ones elections are supposed to be about, not bloggers or MSM pundits? Sheez, go do something else if you're bored and come back when we the people get things settled, okay?


    [ Parent ]
    Heh. (none / 0) (#36)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:08:59 PM EST
    Glad to see you here, sister of ye. I always enjoyed your posts on that Other Blog. ;-)

    [ Parent ]
    Hillary is not tired (none / 0) (#141)
    by Arabella Trefoil on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:29:21 PM EST
    And neither are the voters. What happened to good old fashioned stamina? We are not wimps.

    [ Parent ]
    Hillary Looked Radiant In Her Victory Speech (none / 0) (#196)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:30:48 PM EST
    last night. Finally watched her entire speech. It was excellent. Hit all the right notes. She and her supporters were and will continue to remain energized.

    [ Parent ]
    This woman knows politics (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by ccpup on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:37:37 PM EST
    and she knows that she has this and is working like crazy to clinch it.  Obama is imploding right in front of her (and the SD's) eyes and she's got Ickes working the phones as we speak talking electoral facts and figures and GE electoral reality with those now suddenly nervous SDs.

    She stayed in for a reason and the reason is Obama appears to lack discipline.  The longer this goes on, the more the mask slips, the frustration grows and the desperation in his speeches soars.  Gone are the days of Hope and Change.  Now we have Anger and Frustration.  And bitterness.

    [ Parent ]

    i think it comes down to (none / 0) (#239)